The soul is unaffected by neutron bombardment Slip - for that we'd probably need what was to come after Regan's Starwars programme - the 'first strike' defensive pre-empting spiritual blaster initiative - broadly conceived as a Flying Harrington carrying an Ornamental Mind Molly Coddler - fortunately the technology is incompatible! I did do neutron work in the old Chemistry Tower, working closely with some crazed loons who believed they were on the verge of cold fusion. None of our experiments worked, which is probably a good thing as my colleagues' gizmo would have produced enough radiation to kill us all if it had. Given that we all peered over their rather simple, unshielded apparatus in some glee when it started to steam and only did the yield maths after this, I think I can claim to be a simple soul!
On 21 Sep, 23:39, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Its interesting to take a line drawing of a cube and try to imagine > the back face coming forward. At first it doesn't. You try a little > harder then suddenly it pops forward. Now was that final event an > interpretation? That is the structure I think. The will is capable of > attempting to interpret in a different way. But then it takes some > time and then...suddenly... it changes. Perception follows an act of > will to change an interpretation. Depth changes its meaning. > Literally. But what changes finally is the way it looks. > > I have seen the entire world devoid of any depth. It is not that I > thought the world was devoid of any depth. Rather I saw it was and > then tried to understand my experience after. The initial try was not > like the cube because I didn't see it coming. It comes from the most > obvious of places (for me it started a little in some green grass and > some conversations but that was nothing compared to the bookcase. > That's where I really saw it... ironically I was criticizing at the > very moment and explaining why it was wrong and then I just saw it in > a bookcase and stopped talking. My teacher chuckled and someone asked > if I saw it.) and you can't believe that you didn't understand before > and you can't believe you will ever not understand again. (So why do I > waste so much time!) > > But after a while, at one point, it was like the cube. I could drop in > and out of awareness not at the snap of a finger but by remembering > how I thought and looking and a kind of trying, then, suddenly, it > would change. And then you begin to hear voices and walk around in it. > (Why is it that no one asks what it said?) And the synchronicity > starts in earnest. The first time you see it is the hardest. So is it > interpretation? Yes I think so. But so is my car. So is the ordinary > everyday world. The way it seems. The way it looks. It is an > interpretation that causes it. A kind of understanding of the meaning > of being and space results in its seeming to be that way. One is very > common. The other is not as rare as you might think. People have > written about it each generation and in many cultures. The rare one is > the truth. The other a kind of confusion or ignorance. > > But in another way it is different than other interpretation. It > challenges your objectivity and can make intellectual description seem > in a funny way ridiculous. I believe that is the root of all of the > anti-intellectuality that is in the culture. Not wanting to be caught > thinking. Yet it is the truth and the terminus or limit of > understanding. It is the Answer > > Here is an alternative perspective ... an hypothesis: > 1) The meaning of reality is a voice. > 2) The voice does not often speak but it is almost always as a world. > 3) When it speaks it speaks to you. > 4) Sometimes you walk around in it. > 5) Sometimes you should do something > 6) You always want it back and sometimes you try to capture it by > knowing it into place when its there. > 7) You can reflect on it and understand...it leaves a residue of > knowledge, > 8) It is always doing this, you can understand better the old way you > used to think and its limits. > > I did not say I subscribe to this. I said it was a hypothesis. > > Eventually, culturally, we can get it, but I think we will be hard > pressed to pin it down ;) > > Here is what it said: > 1) Ed Art Mouth > 2) No matter where you are you can be ok > 3) The burning bush > > The rest of the time it just flashed like Hopkins blue bleak embers. > > Sincerely, > > Justin-Philosophy-Mouth Ha! What goes around comes around. > > (Note to self...Charter of mind's eye to *rationally* discuss....) > > On Sep 21, 5:29 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 'Data' have long been seen as 'capta' GW - Kant somewhere, but you can > > take bets the Greeks and Indians were on to this. It's difficult to > > know how the myth of the given survives so well. It's not this that's > > really interesting, but how shifts in how we construe can make a > > difference in what we can do and be. What we often call 'data' is > > often agreed by all parties in communication about it and it does seem > > different from theorising even if we need theory to spin it in. Quite > > how raw data ever is remains questionable. What tends to strike me is > > that there is always plenty I am agreeing on with others, yet often I > > sense the others have no intent at all to understand my perspectives. > > I fancy much epistemological distraction about how hard it all is is > > basic bull to excuse people ignoring the actual evidence in situations > > because it suits them. Rand isn't much good, but I feel something is > > right about trying to get us to work with the evidence. This is more > > or less where epistemology gets us to today, but it then lapses into > > complexities not transmitted into lay texts - this also being a > > problem for therapy. I think we should return to exposing much > > current positioning as lying through ordering the evidence. > > > On 21 Sep, 21:52, [email protected] wrote: > > > > I agree Frantherman - There are purportedly 465 therapy models which must > > > be good for some people. It is also true that not all models are equally > > > effective. The model I think that is most comprehensive allowing for > > > maximum flexibility, uniqueness of personality structure, depth and > > > complexity of differences in personality and the likes is psychodynamic > > > depth psychology. This allows and encourages what I refer to as > > > > an individuals' Rashomoning their unique experience which enables them to > > > find a path through their confusion in ordering the raw data of their > > > > experience. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: frantheman <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:27 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > he marvellous thing about that which we call "reality" - the world as > > > e experience it - is its amazing depth and complexity. For this > > > eason we can use many approaches/models. They don't always dovetail > > > nto each other, but neither are they necessarily in contradiction. > > > here's a lot in the fable of the blind men and the elephant - the > > > ifference being that each of the blind men is right and the elephant > > > an never be explored in its entirety. > > > As a therapist, gw, I imagine you encounter this all the time. > > > veryone finds their own answers/openings/ways forward for themselves. > > > sychologically, reducing our existence to a singular linear vector - > > > hile in certain situations, perhaps, temprarily behaviourally helpful > > > s a possible way out of confusion - is=2 > > > 0not really helpful. It is > > > eeing, relishing the complex richness of experience which opens all > > > orts of possibilities for growth. Rand's approach strikes me here as > > > omewhat shallow. > > > Francis > > > On 21 Sep., 21:21, [email protected] wrote: > > > Try this out - A quote from the philosopher Abraham Kaplan in his book: > > > The > > > ew World of Philosophy > > > > "… The facts of experience are not “data” – what is given – but what is > > > aken: a “fact” is etymologically something made. The > > > > experience from which knowledge issues is more like reading the > > > expression in > > > face than it is like solving a cryptogram or a crossword > > > > puzzle. What is at work is not a process of sheer ratiocination, but > > > processes > > > f identification, introjection, and other such mechanisms, > > > > largely unconscious and preconscious. (Kaplan, 1961, p.152) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: frantheman <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:51 am > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > inally someone has brought this discussion into the area in which it > > > elongs. The reference to Husserl was apposite. Thank you, Justin > > > I've been following this discussion without taking part - apart from a > > > ew one-line Socratic questions to Skip - because I see the question > > > f "facts", or, relatedly, "things-in-themselves" (to use Husserlian > > > erminology), as very deep and quite complex - even if, as many claim, > > > =C > > > 2sublime simplicity may come into view when one has reached a certain > > > tage in the investigation. Furthermore, I am very much aware that my > > > wn position in this investigation is very much conditional. > > > Justin goes much farther than I can, indeed, my view is=2 > > > 0that he goes > > > arther than philosophy can. (Not for the first time,) this post > > > eminds me very much of the later Heidegger, where his search for the > > > eing of being (Sein des Seins) leads him to language and expression > > > hich I understand more in poetic and mystical terms. This seems to me > > > o be inevitable, given our basic position as perceiving subjects. > > > oing beyond this is like trying to get out of our own skins. I doubt > > > f this is possible in terms of strict philosophical analysis, because > > > despite Husserl's own attempts to "bracket everything out" - I see > > > o way to bracket out the analysing subject. Concepts and language > > > onstrain our analysis to the phenomenological, making our > > > onclusions, ultimately, conditional. For my own position > > > conditionally!), I see certain elements of confirmation in many > > > nterpretations of quantum theory as well as in aspects of Popper's > > > hinking. > > > I emphasise once more - conditional. I see philosophy - the search for > > > isdom - very much as a journey; a journey into the depth of things > > > phenomenologically perceived :-)). To use Heideggerian language, I > > > ind myself in the clearing, waiting for Being to reveal itself. It > > > oesn't. At the moment. This may change. But such a revelation (o > > > rn > > > ight > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
